DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "26" and "28" have both been used to designate the impervious coating in paragraph [0050] of the instant specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: coating 28 in paragraph [0050] of the instant specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number 113 in Fig. 2A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehbubani (US 2023/0014166) in view of Holland (US 2002/0170728).
With respect to claims 1-5, 13-15, and 18-19, Mehbubani teaches knit sleeves for protecting an elongate member therein (paragraph [0002]). An impervious coating is provided to extend about the outer surface of the knit wall (paragraph [0012]). The impervious coating is one of silicone, silicone-based, liquid silicone rubber, polytetrafluoroethylene, or polyurethane layer bonded directly to the outer surface of the knit wall (paragraph [0014]). The knit wall can be formed entirely by multifilament flame-resistant yarn (paragraphs [0011], [0018]). The knit sleeve may also provide protection to a bus-bar connection between portions of an electric vehicle battery pack (paragraph [0006]).
Mehbubani is silent as to the glass fibers having a denier between 30-420 tex, preferably 100-180 tex, more preferably 120-160 tex.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The yarns preferably have deniers in the range of 400-1000 denier, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the denier of the flame-resistant yarn to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 6, Mehbubani in view of Holland teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Mehbubani further teaches the impervious coating has a thickness between 0.05 and 3 mm (paragraph [0069]).
With respect to claims 7-8, Mehbubani in view of Holland teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above. Mehbubani further teaches the flame-resistant yarn is a mineral yarn such as fiberglass, silica, or basalt (paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
With respect to claims 9-10, 16-17, and 20, Mehbubani in view of Holland teaches all the limitations of claims 2, 14, and 19 above.
Mehbubani is silent as to the knit having a stitch size between 4 to 20 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 10 to 17 stitches per 2 cm, in a circumferentially extending course direction and between 4 to 22 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 9 to 15 stitched per 2 cm in a lengthwise extending wale direction.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The fabric preferably has 30 to 36 yarns per inch, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric having a more open or more closed weave may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the stitch size of the knit of Mehbubani to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible with the desired openness while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 11, Mehbubani in view of Holland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mehbubani further teaches the knit wall can be knit with a rib-knit pattern, having raised ribs extending in one of a lengthwise warp direction or a circumferential weft direction (paragraph [0019]).
With respect to claim 12, Mehbubani in view of Holland teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above. Mehbubani further teaches the rib-knit pattern can be formed by alternating knit and purl stitches in a 1x1 and/or 2x2 knit stitch pattern (paragraph [0020]).
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (GB 2140325) in view of Holland (US 2002/0170728).
With respect to claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-15, and 18-19, Sharp teaches glass fiber substrates having on the surface thereof a silicone-rubber based coating (impervious, elastomeric coating) (page 1, lines 5-6). The form and shape of the glass fiber element depends to a certain extent on the substrate ultimately to be protected, but can be form example a sleeve or tubular article (page 1, lines 38-44). The element is generally coated on one side only, for example if the substrate is tubular the silicone rubber composition is generally applied on the outer surface (page 2, lines 1-4). The glass fiber element can be made from glass fibers (multifilament flame-resistant yarn) or glass monofilaments (page 1, lines 38-44). The element is preferably a fabric and can be prepared in any technique, for example it can be braided, knitted, woven, or non-woven fabric (page 1, lines 38-44).
To one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to try the forms of the glass fabric described by Sharp, including knitted, in order to determine which provides the desired protection for the desired substrate (see e.g., Sharp page 1, lines 38-44).
Sharp is silent as to the glass fibers having a denier between 30-420 tex, preferably 100-180 tex, more preferably 120-160 tex.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The yarns preferably have deniers in the range of 400-1000 denier, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the denier of the glass fibers to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
The recitations "for protecting an elongate member" in claim 1 and “for protecting a bus bar connection between cells of a battery pack of an electric vehicle” in claim 13 have not been given patentable weight because they are a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02.
With respect to claim 6, Sharp in view of Holland teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Sharp further teaches the coating is provided in an amount to provide a coating from about 20 to about 75 mils (0.508-1.905mm) thick, preferably from about 30 to about 60 mils (0.762-1.524mm) (page 2, lines 5-6).
With respect to claims 9-10, 16-17, and 20, Sharp in view of Holland teaches all the limitations of claims 2, 14, and 19 above.
Sharp is silent as to the knit having a stitch size between 4 to 20 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 10 to 17 stitches per 2 cm, in a circumferentially extending course direction and between 4 to 22 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 9 to 15 stitched per 2 cm in a lengthwise extending wale direction.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The fabric preferably has 30 to 36 yarns per inch, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric having a more open or more closed weave may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the stitch size of the glass fibers to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible with the desired openness while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (GB 2140325) in view of Holland (US 2002/0170728) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Avula (US 2012/0148772).
With respect to claim 11, Sharp in view of Holland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Sharp in view of Holland is silent as to the knit comprising ribs.
Avula teaches coated textile sleeves for routing and protecting elongate members from exposure to abrasion, thermal conditions, vibration, and other environmental conditions, such as exposure to fluid (paragraph [0006]). The textile sleeve has an elongate knit wall constructed from weft knit yarns (paragraph [0006]). The knit wall has an outer surface with a flexible impervious elastomeric coating thereon (paragraph [0006]). To enhance the ability of the sleeve to flex, the outer surface of the wall can be formed having circumferentially extending annular ribs (paragraph [0017]).
Since both Sharp in view of Holland and Avula teach elastomeric coated knit sleeves for protection of elongate members it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the knit sleeve of Sharp in view of Holland to include circumferentially extending annular ribs in order to enhance the ability of the sleeve to flex.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (GB 2140325) in view of Holland (US 2002/0170728) and Avula (US 2012/0148772) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Morgan (“Carbon Fibers and their Composites).
With respect to claim 12, Sharp in view of Holland and Avula teach all the limitations of claim 11 above.
Sharp in view of Holland and Avula is silent as to the ribs being formed via alternating knit and purl stitches with one another in a desired pattern.
It is known in the art that a rib knit fabric can be formed by alternating wales of plane stitches and purl stitches on both sides of the fabric to provide rib effects (Morgan; 21.1.6.1 Weft Knitting). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the rib structure of Sharp in view of Holland and Avula by alternating plain knit and purl stitches because it is known in the art as a suitable method for forming ribs in a knit fabric.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8, 13-14, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,503,7971 in view of Holland (US 2002/01707228).
With respect to the instant claims 1-4 and 13-15, claim 1 of Mehbubani claims a sleeve for protecting an elongate member, comprising: a knit wall having a circumferentially continuous outer surface extending along a longitudinal axis between opposite ends, said knit wall being formed at least in part by multifilament flame-resistant yarn, and an impervious coating extending about said circumferentially continuous outer surface of said knit wall (Mehbubani; claim 1).
Mehbubani is silent as to the glass fibers having a denier between 30-420 tex, preferably 100-180 tex, more preferably 120-160 tex.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The yarns preferably have deniers in the range of 400-1000 denier, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the denier of the flame-resistant yarn to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the instant claim 5, claim 1 of Mehbubani further claims wherein said impervious coating is one of a silicone, silicon-based, liquid silicone rubber, polytetrafluoroethylene, or polyurethane material bonded directly to said circumferentially continuous outer surface of said knit wall (Mehbubani; claim 1).
With respect to the instant claim 7, claim 3 of Mehbubani further claims wherein said multifilament flame-resistant yarn is a mineral yarn (Mehbubani; claim 3).
With respect to the instant claim 8, claim 4 of Mehbubani further claims wherein said mineral yarn is at least one of fiberglass, silica, and basalt (Mehbubani; claim 4).
With respect to the instant claims 9-10 and 16-17, Mehbubani teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 14 above but is silent as to the knit having a stitch size between 4 to 20 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 10 to 17 stitches per 2 cm, in a circumferentially extending course direction and between 4 to 22 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 9 to 15 stitched per 2 cm in a lengthwise extending wale direction.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The fabric preferably has 30 to 36 yarns per inch, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric having a more open or more closed weave may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the stitch size of the knit of Mehbubani to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible with the desired openness while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the instant claim 11, claim 1 of Mehbubani further claims wherein said multifilament flame-resistant yarn is knit to form first ribs extending lengthwise along said circumferentially continuous outer surface or second ribs extending annularly about said circumferentially continuous outer surface (Mehbubani; claim 1).
With respect to the instant claim 12, claim 2 of Mehbubani further claims wherein said plurality of first ribs and second ribs are formed vis alternating knit and purl stitches with one another in a desired pattern (Mehbubani; claim 2).
With respect to the instant claims 1-4 and 13-15, claim 8 of Mehbubani claims a sleeve for protecting a bus-bar connection between battery packs of an electric vehicle consisting of: a knit wall having a circumferentially continuous outer surface extending along a longitudinal axis between opposite open ends, said knit wall being formed at least in part by multifilament flame-resistant yarn, and an impervious coating extending about said outer surface or said knit wall (Mehbubani; claim 8).
Mehbubani is silent as to the glass fibers having a denier between 30-420 tex, preferably 100-180 tex, more preferably 120-160 tex.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The yarns preferably have deniers in the range of 400-1000 denier, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the denier of the flame-resistant yarn to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the instant claims 9-10 and 16-17, Mehbubani teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 14 above but is silent as to the knit having a stitch size between 4 to 20 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 10 to 17 stitches per 2 cm, in a circumferentially extending course direction and between 4 to 22 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 9 to 15 stitched per 2 cm in a lengthwise extending wale direction.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The fabric preferably has 30 to 36 yarns per inch, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric having a more open or more closed weave may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the stitch size of the knit of Mehbubani to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible with the desired openness while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the instant claim 18, claim 13 of Mehbubani further claims wherein said impervious coating is silicone-based (Mehbubani; claim 13).
With respect to the instant claim 19, claim 14 of Mehbubani claims a method of constructing a sleeve for providing dielectric protection to a bus-bar interconnecting portions of an electric vehicle battery pack to one another, comprising: knitting multifilament flame-resistant yarn to form a knit wall having a circumferentially continuous outer surface extending along a longitudinal axis between opposite ends; and bonding an impervious coating to the circumferentially continuous outer surface of the knit wall (Mehbubani; claim 14).
Mehbubani is silent as to the glass fibers having a denier between 30-420 tex.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The yarns preferably have deniers in the range of 400-1000 denier, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the denier of the flame-resistant yarn to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the instant claim 20, Mehbubani teaches all the limitations of claim 19 above but is silent as to the knit having a stitch size between 4 to 20 stitches per 2 cm in a circumferentially extending course direction and between 4 to 22 stitches per 2 cm in a lengthwise extending wale direction.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The fabric preferably has 30 to 36 yarns per inch, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric having a more open or more closed weave may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the stitch size of the knit of Mehbubani to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible with the desired openness while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8, and 12 of copending Application No. 19/412,7802 in view of Holland (US 2002/01707228).
With respect to the instant claims 1-4 and 13-15, claim 1 of Qiu claims a sleeve for protecting an elongate member, comprising: a knit wall having a circumferentially continuous outer surface extending along a longitudinal axis between opposite ends, said knit wall being formed at least in part by multifilament flame-resistant yarn, and an impervious coating extending about said circumferentially continuous outer surface of said knit wall (Qiu; claim 1).
Qiu is silent as to the glass fibers having a denier between 30-420 tex, preferably 100-180 tex, more preferably 120-160 tex.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The yarns preferably have deniers in the range of 400-1000 denier, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the denier of the flame-resistant yarn to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the instant claim 5, claim 1 of Qiu further claims wherein said impervious coating is one of a silicone, silicon-based, liquid silicone rubber, polytetrafluoroethylene, or polyurethane material bonded directly to said circumferentially continuous outer surface of said knit wall (Qiu; claim 1).
With respect to the instant claim 7, claim 2 of Qiu further claims wherein said multifilament flame-resistant yarn is a mineral yarn (Qiu; claim 2).
With respect to the instant claim 8, claim 3 of Qiu further claims wherein said mineral yarn is at least one of fiberglass, silica, and basalt (Qiu; claim 3).
With respect to the instant claims 9-10 and 16-17, Qiu teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 14 above but is silent as to the knit having a stitch size between 4 to 20 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 10 to 17 stitches per 2 cm, in a circumferentially extending course direction and between 4 to 22 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 9 to 15 stitched per 2 cm in a lengthwise extending wale direction.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The fabric preferably has 30 to 36 yarns per inch, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric having a more open or more closed weave may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the stitch size of the knit of Qiu to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible with the desired openness while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the instant claim 11, claim 8 of Qiu claims wherein said circumferentially continuous outer surface has a convolute contour formed by a plurality of peaks and a plurality of valleys alternating with one another along the longitudinal axis (Qiu; claim 8).
With respect to the instant claims 1-4 and 13-15, claim 12 of Qiu claims a sleeve for protecting an elongate member consisting of: a knit wall having a circumferentially continuous outer surface extending along a longitudinal axis between opposite open ends, said knit wall being formed at least in part by multifilament flame-resistant yarn, and an impervious coating extending about said outer surface or said knit wall (Qiu; claim 12).
Qiu is silent as to the glass fibers having a denier between 30-420 tex, preferably 100-180 tex, more preferably 120-160 tex.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The yarns preferably have deniers in the range of 400-1000 denier, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the denier of the flame-resistant yarn to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the instant claims 9-10 and 16-18, Qiu teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 14 above but is silent as to the knit having a stitch size between 4 to 20 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 10 to 17 stitches per 2 cm, in a circumferentially extending course direction and between 4 to 22 stitches per 2 cm, preferably 9 to 15 stitched per 2 cm in a lengthwise extending wale direction.
Holland teaches simple abrasion-resistant protective systems for lengths of materials such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. which comprises a sleeve (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]). The fabric preferably has 30 to 36 yarns per inch, but is not limited thereto (paragraph [0024]). As those of skill in the art will appreciate, a lighter or heaver fabric having a more open or more closed weave may be selected to construct a protective cover for a specialized application while still providing a fabric that is flexible while providing sufficient strength and long-lasting durability (paragraphs [0009], [0024]). A light-weight coating may be provided on the outer surface of the protective cover to enhance the penetration resistance of the fabric by fluids, chemicals, and particulate matter (paragraph [0010]). The fabric may be knitted (paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the stitch size of the knit of Qiu to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a protection sleeve that is light-weight and flexible with the desired openness while providing sufficient strength and durability. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Puype (US 2010/0196638) discloses a method for applying an elastomer on a sheath (2) including the step of applying by pad-printing an elastomer layer on a portion (20) of the sheath (2) (abstract). A pad-printing machine (1) is also provided for implementing the method (abstract). The invention can particularly be used for textile sheaths used in the protection of exhaust-gas flow pipes in an automobile (abstract).
Lesur (US 2019/0382951) discloses a protective textile sleeve for providing protection to an elongate member contained therein and method of construction thereof (abstract). The sleeve has a wall formed of interlaced yarn(s) and a coating of elastomeric material bonded to an outer surface of the wall (abstract). The coating has an indicia therein to provide a viewer viewing an outer surface of the coating with information, wherein the indicia extends radially inwardly into the outer surface of the coating to provide the indicia with depth so as to avoid being easily worn away (abstract).
Chen (US 2007/0251595) discloses a fire-retardant insulating material and method of construction thereof comprising a textile fabric fabricated of continuous basalt filaments (abstract). The continuous basalt filaments are preferably texturized or twisted. The insulating material may be arranged in any configuration, such as a sheet, panel or sleeve, and may be knit, woven or braided (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Hereinafter referred to as Mehbubani
2 Hereinafter referred to as Qiu
Prosecution Insights